Now I don't care what your feelings on helment use are. Maybe you're one of those people who thinks not wearing a bicycle helment is tantamount to suicide. Maybe you're one of those people who refuses to wear one under any circumstances because they mess up your hair. Or maybe you're like me and don't care much about your hair because you're losing it anyway, so you wear a helment when you're riding a go-fast bike in a special outfit but you don't bother when you're noodling around town in street clothes.

And don't tell me which one you are, because honestly I don't give a shit.

The point is that I have no problem with helments, but if you support a mandatory bicycle helment law then you are anti-cycling. There, I said it. You're a traitor. A heretic. Give up your bike and go lease a Hyundai, because you are playing right into the hands of your oppressors. See, the Automotive Industrial Complex and their various lackeys need helment laws, and the last thing any self-respecting cyclist should do is help them. Here's why:

They need everything to be your problem.

Really, we're practically there already, which is why you'll routinely read newspaper articles that say things like, "The cyclist's legs were crushed when the unlicensed operator lost control of his steamroller. The victim was not wearing a helment." So what if it's an irrelevant detail? In America today, no helment = menace to society.

America may not be number one anymore when it comes to education, or health care, or overall quality of life, but you're goddamn right we lead the world in victim-blaming. There's not anyplace else on the planet where people are more gleeful when the strong get one over on the weak. If you don't understand this now, you certainly will when a driver hits you and you discover the entire system is built around shielding him or her from accountability. You can thank the auto companies and AAA for that, among others. (Do yourself a favor and read about the history of "jaywalking," a concept the auto industry more or less invented. As for AAA, they're fighting against red light cameras not far from me even as I type this, on the basis that stopping for red lights causes rear-end collisions.)

Mandatory bicycle helment laws are just one more way of shifting responsibility away from the driver and onto you. When I was hit from behind by a motorist who then lied to police about what happened, all her insurance company wanted to know was whether or not I was wearing a helment, even though my balding pate was completely unscathed.

Then, once the Automotive Industrial Complex has shifted all the blame onto you they can take it a step further and make it public policy. "Cycle tracks and so forth make cyclists safer and encourage more people to ride? So what? Make 'em wear plastic bumpers on their heads and be done with it."

Congratulations. You're now a car fender.

If all of this is too complicated, let me explain your future in four (4) simple steps:

I realize this is supposed to be an objective point-counterpoint type thing, but why should we even entertain this "debate" in the first place? What is this compulsion in American society to entertain dumb ideas? It's like when we pretend creationism is a legitimate worldview so we don't offend the religious kooks. (I realize "religious kooks" is redundant.) Hey, I know the helme(n)t deba(n)te makes good clickbait, but some of these ideas are downright toxic:

During the summer of 2014, while riding on a road closed to auto traffic, I survived a collision with another cyclist, only because I was wearing a helmet. Without a helmet, the front of my head would have hit the ground at 28mph, unprotected.

Just several months before my crash, a car that ran a stop sign struck one of my friends while she was riding her bike. She had massive facial trauma, and continues to suffer long-term effects from going through the automobile’s windshield. She “coded” while on the helicopter ride to the hospital. The only reason she is around today: A helmet saved her life.

Okay. Firstly, I'm glad everybody's alive and all that. But...but...you were both wearing helments!!! So why does it follow that we need a law? By all means, wear a helment when you're cycling for "sport." Granted, I don't know about the friend who got hit at the stop sign, but I'm going to guess that someone who works for "Bicycling" and is riding on a closed road at 28mph was not on a townie bike picking up radishes from the greenmarket. Yet because he crashed while engaged in high-speed cycling someone who's cruising around in a sundress should have to wear safety gear as well? Come on.

Comparing cycling to other recreational pursuits, we see that football players—at all levels—wear helmets to lessen the risk of brain injury.

Leave it to someone at "Bicycling" to reduce cycling entirely to a recreational pursuit. The sporting component of cycling is a small one, and USA Cycling makes you wear a helment when you compete anyway. And holy shit, football?!? The sport of football is based on people slamming into each other on purpose! How is riding your bike around town even remotely like football--or any of these other sports?

This is also the case for baseball, hockey, horseback riding, and virtually every other sport that may involve some risk of personal injury.

You gotta be kidding me. I'm pretty sure baseball players only wear helments when people are throwing 100mph fastballs directly at them. As for hockey, it's fucking hockey!!! I do give him bonus points for working equestrianism into the argument though. Sure, if my bike weighed a thousand pounds and had four steel-shod hooves and a mind of its own I'd make sure to wear a helment too. But the amount of times my bicycle got scared by one of its own farts and threw me is exactly zero.

Anyway, everybody knows "cycling is the new golf," so why not just compare it to that? Do golfers wear helments when they're out on the links or zipping between holes in their golf carts? I don't think so.

And here's where the argument gets really dangerous:

The next logical step would be for insurance companies to deny claims for those involved in a bicycling accident while not wearing a helmet. This could be avoided by mandating helmet use, saving both legal fees and lives.

So wait. You actually want insurance companies to deny claims for victims because they weren't wearing helments?

Bike advocate groups might consider what others see when they see us. They see people who run stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, ride in packs, take up a lane, and so on. It’s not a pretty picture. Sure, most of us are wearing helmets as we bend rules and traffic laws, but that’s not what the pissed off drivers see. So when they hear cyclists are opposed to a helmet law, it only furthers their belief that we are selfish, unpredictable and dangerous.

Maybe we let this one go. Let the lawmakers and drivers have this one without resistance. We got our 3-foot law in California, we can put up with a helmet law on the books. Pick you battles as they say. This is one fight we can easily walk away from.

Wow. "Let this one go?" Leave it to the Freds to sell the rest of us out. Sure, they've got nothing at stake, since the helments already go with their outfits. Essentially what he's saying is that because people get irritated by the local crabon weenie group ride every person who rides a bike for any reason should cop to the Foam Hat of Shame as some sort of penance or polystyrene bargaining chip.

I swear these goddamn Freds will ruin cycling forever if you let them.

Just don't come crying to me in 20 years when you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you're wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those "smart hats," and a GPS beacon up your ass so you don't get hit by an Apple car.

In fact, you won't be able to come crying to me, because I'll have emigrated to the Netherlands, where they'll have granted me political asylum.

Just need to advocate that the law be changed so that gun owners also have to wear helments when they are practicing. Then America will suddenly remember that it's made of freedom and reject it hastily.

Kidding aside. I like helmets. They have saved the contents of my skull from serious injury on several occasions. I mostly mountain bike, so I think wearing a foam hat is a basically good idea due to the fact that you never know when you are going to eat shit. If you're a roadie, wearing a foam hat is also a good idea because you never know when some a-hole driver or a giant pothole is going to send you over the bars. I have crashed hard enough on both the trail and the road to crack my helmet. I was glad it wasn't my skull and I was glad that I was able to ride away. Also, most crashes are stupid and the worst ones seem to happen when you least expect it.

Nonetheless, I don't think wearing a helmet should be mandatory. However, as a matter of personal choice, if you don't think that protecting the contents of your skull is a good idea, it may be that there is nothing in your skull worth protecting.

I'm surprised California doesn't have a helment law already. I expect it to happen and expect New York to follow. I think you, Mr. Rock Machine, may reluctantly become a spokesman or advocate, whatever you wish to call it, for cycling and common sense. You are one of the more erudite and eloquent bloggers out there and you call bullshit when you smell it. Bicycling magazine did offer me a valuable pointer once on how to drink from a water bottle while riding. Before that, I fell every time I tried taking a drink. Keep fighting the good fight.

Completely agree with you, and it is disheartening the cycling press is equivocating, but in my experience, state legislators are not susceptible to logic, doubly so for anything involving bicycles. Just hope they lose interest in this while fighting about some other existential threat to California.

Larry says: It should be no surprise the $hill of Cycling and Buycycling are all for helment laws. They exist to shamelessly promote BUYING ever more crap, otherwise who will buy their advertising? I laugh at the "I was saved by my helment" crowd. Did they have the exact same crash without one and die - otherwise how could they know the helment saved them? People who drive cars with convertible tops need helments more than cyclists!!

They say "Follow the money", so the ad under the article is for Bell Helment Company. They're the one that started the entire notion that you need one in the first place with their fraudulent "study" they paid for.

I can't remember the name of the character from "Repo Man" who said, "The more you drive, the less intelligent you are." The problem is that these people are dumb fucking kunts to begin with, and they drive a lot. Dan Rather said it best, "Americans will put up with anything as long as it doesn't block traffic."

Anon 12:51, those Freakonomics guys specialize in the law of unintended consequences. They argue that American football was actually much safer in the "no helmet" and "leather helmet" days because players were more cautious about leading with their head and helmet-to-helmet contact. Then football helmet was supposed to make the player safer; in reality it had the opposite effect.

Speaking of Freakonomics, here is their take on mandatory helmet laws:

I wear a helment when i ride sportingly, or off-roadingly. My brother crashed hard when we rode sportingly and he probably is alive because of it. I can't say for certain we didn't replicate the crash without a helment, so scientifically there is no proof.

Hanyways, what these laws do, especially in California, is give the police a visible reason to open any riders to harassment. This will be used to pull over the unsavories and when they step out of line, the cops can search them, or arrest them for resisting their fauxthority.

It's BS.

Next they'll put a rule in the books that they will check the expiration date inside the helmet giving the police reasonable cause to pull over any bicyclist and force them to submit to a search.

Oh man I got dressed down by a lady USAC official at a race for noodling in the parking lot helmentless. A 4 year old on a push bike whizzed by her later and I asked her to get on his case like she did mine in front of the entire field and she ignored me.

Snobums @ 1:07 Hear. Hear. In fact, I am with you all the way today, from start to final full stop.

You already know that the only reason I wear a lid is cause I am a Crash Test Dummy who is always going as fast as her little legs will take her. But honestly: mandatory lids is NOT ok. This Capitalism in Decay world full of brainwashed motorist fools will do anything to discourage us from finding a better, two wheeled way. Their sacred profits depend upon it.

Confusion clarification: the Freakonomics piece states CA has a helment law already; that law is only for minors (yoots in Jersey).

That was tedious, Snob, in that it brought the tedium of the world before my nose again on a day I've spent trying to find something more uplifting than suicidal pilots, steady rain, and health-insurance hold music. Guess I'll go ride my bike in the rain, and enjoy the fleeting freedom of deciding whether to wear a helment without the input of Big Brother.

This isn't the first time you've discussed this & I understand you're sincere, but I really wanted me some quiz. Funny Pictures. Goofy vids. Bad puns. Ritualistic Triguy bashing. Bonus videos. I guess that German pilot guy knew their wasn't a quiz today & had to end it all.

If we get all scientific on thier asses, the most important place to implement a mandatory helmet law is in CARS. You are more likely to sustain a significant head injury in a car than anywhere else. The real drain on our healthcare system is car accidents. Seriously. 50% of head injuries happen in motor vehicle collisions. Cycling is just a tiny fraction of the other half. (And don't let's even begin talking about subsidies to motorists when it comes to infrastructure and the oil and gas industry, and the real cost of the motoring way of life.)

If this was a senator from California trying to pass a law for the entire country, that would seem more a problem than someone who wants to pass a law for California.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/helmets.htm Washington state does not have a mandatory helmet law for the entire state, but virtually all the WA jurisdictions with any urban population do have helmet laws, per the list from the WA state dept of transportation. Does this west coast foolishness really have implications for sensible people in the east?

Does this west coast foolishness really have implications for sensible people in the east?

Yes. bad laws spread like cankers. legislators have no imagination so they copy bad laws from others, especially when special interest groups tell them why they should, and hand their PAC bags of money

I'm disappointed that you didn't make the case that riding without a helment advances the cause of evolution.

How it works is this. If you get killed while riding a bike, your are out of the gene pool, and you can't reproduce. Once you have kids that survive to reproductive age, then it's o.k. because they'll pass on your genetic material.

If however, your kids aren't wearing helments and die, then they can't pass on the genes, so its important to make sure they wear helments.

BTW snob, do you put your kids in a car seat for any other reason than you'll get jailed if you don't?

But, not wearing helments is best, because it increases the probability that the unfit members of a population will not reproduce, such as those that live in dangerous cities that don't prosecute homicidal drivers, or weave in and out of dangerous traffic.

I feel fully qualified to mention this because I survived, so far, many years of bike riding without a helment and my childhood years as a car passenger who never rode in a car seat.

Of course, I depend on divine intervention to keep me safe, plus a little good judgement, and a helment when good judgement fails, as it has a few times.

We have available a limited number of G. W. Bu$h autographed depleted uranium crabon bicycling helments. They were meant to be worn at the Bu$h Ranchreo in Texas but that video was never shot. So now they are available to you, the general pubic. This model helment is also worn by the Secret Service and Secretary of State John Carry in his numerous "Hey look at me I'm an everyday common bike douche' just like you. These helments proudly feature the American Eagle with terrorists entwined in its talons and when contact with the earth is made they play 'Wall Street uber alles.'

Wearing a helmet in the shower would absolutely reduce your risk of injury of slipping and falling in the shower. Would it reduce your risk of actually slipping and falling no. So we should all wear helmets in the shower. In fact never leaving your couch would also reduce your risk of injury, so why the fuck ever leave your house? I guarantee that the assholes who are pushing hardest for the mandatory helmet laws are non-cyclists.

Have been bike commuting in NYC regularly for the past 20 years. Never wear a helmet. I've been hit by a car, door'd a couple times, run off the road by overjealous food delivery guys on electric bikes, etc. Broken ribs, road rash, bruises, stiches but the head is still fine. the mandatory helmet laws proponents can suck my helmet.

wow, Red Kite Prayer, what a fucking bunch of douchbags. I love this line: "Maybe for the enthusiast it’s just obvious. Maybe because we do things that others simply can’t, we see no other option. We dive for corners, sprint for city limits, aggressively descend a local mountain."

"wow, Red Kite Prayer, what a fucking bunch of douchbags. I love this line: "Maybe for the enthusiast it’s just obvious. Maybe because we do things that others simply can’t, we see no other option. We dive for corners, sprint for city limits, aggressively descend a local mountain."

They can't possibly be serious?"--------------------------------------

Why not? I have no doubt that someone on that site could write something so cringeworthy. It is Fred heaven.

Mandatory bicycle helment laws are just one more way of shifting responsibility away from the driver and onto you.

Correct. This is the intention of the new law in Cali.

The second argument for helments is a public health one. Helments don't always help. Whey they do work it measurably lowers public health costs.

Bring some street speeds down for drivers, clarify the rules regarding a cyclist's right to take a lane **and keep it** and then demand cyclists wear helments because increased access means many more bikeen riders. I'm okay with that.

Snobbo, I don't know if you saw the link I put in yesterdays comments, but I believe Jeremy Clarkson could turn out to be the perfect spokesperson for this cause. 1, Motorists love him. 2, He has an opening in his schedule. 3, It seems, he at least occasionally, he gets around by bicycle, helmentless.

Potbelly at 1:35, this is exactly what happens in Washington State. In Kent WA a few years ago, cops made contact with someone on the premise that they weren't wearing a helmet. He split. The cops chased. Then the cops tazed him -- while he was riding -- causing him to fall. Too bad he wasn't wearing a helmet, huh?

"The doctors tell us that about 25 percent of the trauma patients who come through Bellevue are pedestrians who’ve been struck by cars. Frangos and Wall have written a series of papers on the topic, including “Vulnerable Roadway Users Struck by Motor Vehicles at the Center of the Safest, Largest U.S. City.” So what can be done to keep New York pedestrians from dying? Frangos and Wall propose — only half-jokingly — helmets for everyone:"

I am a supporter of common sense. During this last polar cold here in the northeast, I stood a better chance of freezing my noggin than splitting it open. I chose to wear a warm bomber hat as opposed to a helmet.

Mandatory Helment laws are a direct assault on Bike Share Bikes. Australia will never have a popular bike share program. Mexico had to drop their mandatory laws in order to have a popular Bike Share program. Mandatory helment laws are bad for cycling, nearly fatal for Bike Share Programs. California is finally getting with the Bike Share Program, so this is not a coincidence. Bike Share Bikes are part of the mass transit system, so this is just a strongly pro-private-vehicle law. Probably involved a campaign donation. F. U. LIU !

Hey American pals, from the land of the "free" or whatever. Mandatory helmet laws will totally fucking kill off cycling in your country, and give police yet another reason to harass you for doing something harmless like riding to the market as they further buy into the automotive mindset. Seriously, you will fucking regret it. With love and respect, backward fucking Australians. (who need I remind you, came up with "Mad Max")

I don't get why so many bicyclists talk as though all that exists are automobiles and bicycles. There are also humans walking around out there and you are a serious danger to those humans on your bike. I've seen a pedestrian lying motionless, eyes darting around, having been hit in the back by a bicyclist. Well, a former pedestrian. I also had a bicyclist run a red light and slam full-speed into my driver's side window, destroying the left side of my pickup and, believe it or not, walking away unhurt with his bike while I waited for the police. Luckily, he was shaken up enough to give me his contact info without thinking about it before he left.A seatbelt in a car also prevents the driver from flying out of his seat when he hits a bump and becoming a great danger to all around him. Is it inconceivable that someone else's safety might be a factor? Maybe wearing a helmet doesn't mean less danger to pedestrians, maybe it does, but writing this entire article with no consideration of walking aside from jaywalking shows a pretty one-sided perspective.I'm personally not impressed with the radish-buying argument. I may buy a Smart Car and drive it slowly, but I still have to wear a seatbelt and stay off the sidewalk. The fact that people have always ridden their bikes to the store without a helmet is not an argument that they shouldn't have to start wearing one.

Snobby is very correct in focussing his anti-MHL advocacy on quisling fellow cyclists and cycling institutions like successful commercial magazines.

Corporations and venal retailers were in the forefront of supporting the introduction of MHL here. Their commercial motivation was so shamelessly obvious that all these years later I still take delight hearing another LBS is shutting down or that a mega corp is suffering because of those dreaded chinamen.

But the greatest threat to your carefree way of life is the "ordinary" cyclist who loudly supports MHL. Already a couple have surfaced on this very blog, they're an enormous menace. They come in two varieties; 1) the narcissists who believe that if rules and regulations are applied specifically to them, it makes them special, as if their particular fetish is being heralded and made legitimate, and 2) the insecure churchy types who yearn for guidance and stricture in every aspect of their tedious lives and insist everyone else follow the same enlightened path they've embarked upon.

These cyclists are extremely dangerous, there can be no reasoning with them. They are the politicians' ultimate weapon; the useful idiot. Shut them down. Inflict physical injury upon them. Poison their branded water bottles. Trust me, if they're afforded even slightest legitimacy, they will ruin your life. Stop them now while you still can.

Do not underestimate the magnitude of the peril represented by MHL. Everything that is good and noble is crushed in the yoke of MHL. Being denied the Friday Quiz is a very small price to pay in the quest to save California from the scourge of MHL which plagues Australia, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates.

It's too late for us, our lives are no longer worth living, but we'll be able to take some comfort in our destitution if the brave warriors of California are able to crush this evil onslaught before it begins.

Huh. I didn't realize that nobody in Australia rode bicycles because of the evil nanny state. I guess the news articles about Australian cities putting in bike lanes are simply a part of the evil helment conspiracy.

Pfft. It's just like the intellectually bankrupt arguments the anti-vax and anti-flouridation crowd squeeze out.

Cycling lanes inAustralian cities is begrudging, haphazard and in some high-profile quarters the subject of openly explicit hostility. Google "Duncan Gay" if you're not too squeamish. You might get a more balanced appreciation about Australia's cycling sentiment.

There's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" about the Australian helment arguments, they're based on nearly 25 years of actual real life experience.

For a little while I was wearing a helment with all forms of transportation, because people get head injuries inside of cars, too. When no-one joined me, I realized their concern about helments was not so much about safety (ritual bike shaming?) so I stopped in general.

Wearing one did give me the confidence in the driver's seat to simultaneously talk on a flip phone and take a selfie. Super Safe! (picture) mandelics.com/helment_safety.jpg

I think wearing a seat-belt is a good idea. But why should it be mandatory?I don't mind wearing a seat-belt on the highway, but why should I wear one if I'm just going to drive to the shop around the corner? It's our gov'ment taking our freedoms. I'm heading for the hills.

Snobby, you're the Guy Montag of cycling bloggerdom. As a former Jarhead I usually think most people are just sad and aren't worth the effort I put into looking good in a swanky uniform and eating shitty food. But once in a while I see someone standing up for freedom - my freedom - and flipping off the establishment with both fingers and I feel a little better about the world. It's about freedom. Not about helmets. God bless your athiest chamois-clad ass. Semper Fi, man.

I think we have to directly take on this whole culture of fear, and ostracize those who spread the idea that riding a bike is dangerous. So, let's tell people wearing helmets and hi-viz clothing they're not welcome in stores or restaurants. (You wouldn't let someone wearing an athletic cup eat at your restaurant, would you? You'd tell him to take it off, assuming it's on the outside, that is).And we should put 'ghost helmets' at the scene of any accident where someone died even though they were wearing a helmet. (Why do they put 'ghost bikes' at these places? The bike didn't kill them. It just makes bikes look dangerous. Or maybe 'demon cars' would be better)

I wouldn't be surprised about RedKitePrayer. After the whole USADA/Lance thing they said that although they'd wanted to write about Lance in the years before when they worked on big publications, they couldn't because, you know, Lance's people would have cut them off and made their job harder. I sort of gave up on them after that.

Idiots who imagine that compulsory helmets are a good idea should have a good, close look at Australia where they have been for a couple of decades. They work ... in reducing (dramatically) the number of cyclists. They do fuck all for the death toll because of the major body injuries also involved. Helmets have their place and in their place, are often sensible, but a universal requirement has proven to be stupid and anti-cycling in Australia. Of course, those promoting the compulsory helmet argument won't consider Australia, because that would involve research and they've already realised that research does not support compulsion.

I live in Australia. Helmets discourage cycling, make us more outsiders and give the impression cycling is far more dangerous than it really is. The proportion of cyclists who are using bikes for transport is much lower in Australia, helmet laws have contributed to ensuring cycling is not a mainstream activity. Head injuries are the same proportion of total injuries as they were before the stupid laws, they are ineffective at reducing head injuries.Oppose these laws, oppose them now, oppose them vigorously, they are a disaster for cycling.Believe me, I live in the only country with these stupid laws, you really don't want mandatory helmet laws.

Hello from dystopia, and yes, this is what cyclists start looking like when you bring in a helment law, and a lot of the ordinary people drop out. And then you get your bike advocacy organisations lobbying for higher fines for cyclists, and bike advocates speaking at memorials of car dooring victims about how bike riders need to do their bit to 'earn the respect' of motorists.

I am against the MHL but I don't think the convertible driver's should wear helments argument is a good one - convertibles have four wheels and are more stable than a two wheeled vehicle.

I grew up in a state (PA) where they decided to remove mandatory helments for motorcycles about 10 years ago - the motorcyclists have been harassed for years and seem to have organized pretty well - maybe there is some lesson biekyclists can learn from them. This site on bikers rights tracks motorcycle laws/changes, and reflect some success at getting MHL's repealed. (Not sure why the first article listed is about a cop killer getting shot 68 times)

Some years ago, as I was finishing the first of two laps in the Brompton World Championships, battling for 541st place, the cyclist next to me said in a casual tone, "Hey mate, where's yer helmet?" Jet-lagged, I'd left it on the bus.

No one tackled me, or sued me, thank Winston!

Agreed that helmet laws are the blunt end of the wedgie that the moto-philiacs want to inflict on us. Let us not help them. mcget/trophy bikes philly

Great post Snobbums. I was out riding a couple of years ago in the cold and a rider I came upon: "where's your helment?". I thought I had put it on but no: I had pulled my balaclava on and what's left of my brain had assumed: "s/thing on head, good to go".

Good Grief, I go off-fucking for a day and MHL War breaks out. Totally against any and all nanny state feel good laws. At the speeds I am likely to be hit by motorists a helment isn't going to make any difference, and I am as likely to slip in the bathroom, trip on the stairs, fall off a ladder, or defenestrate myself off the roof as I am to fall off my bicycle, none of which require the use of a foam hat, yet. Good job Snob for taking up the cause.

Over the top as usual, but effective. I'm not for mandatory helmet laws, since I believe we should still have some semblance of free choice left in our lives. I wear a helmet when riding single track or on the road, but a slow trail ride with the girlfriend doesn't need it. I'm guessing that was your first time at RKP as they are actually a high quality site. If you spent any time over there you'd see they do plenty of product reviews and are not shy about pointing out the product flaws (unlike your former employer, Bicycling which has never seen a product they didn't think was amazing). I have little doubt this issue will fade away but not before providing us all with some good old fashioned outrage

Is it just me or are people are more uptight about people threatening their own safety than threatening other's personal safety. I can take care of myself thank you. Now if you can just make an effort not to kill others, that would be awesome.

I've had to live with MHL for almost 19 years now. It's tolerable because we only get about a month of really hot weather. Can't imagine MHL in CA (outside of SF) or AU.

Hey...wish I was merckx....if you ever get a chance, read V by Thomas Pynchon. There's a recurring theme of mirror imagery which turned into a discussion of how people are mellower the farther south you go, until you cross the equator, and they get more northern again as you go south...the stream of thought ends with a description of the forced march of tribesmen through SW Africa/Namibia by early 20th century German colonists...the men fell to their deaths from beatings, dehydration and starvation...60,000 died. Pynchon noted that that figure was only 1% of 6 million, but a good effort considering the limited technology & resources available

Guy in front of me had a mechanical issue with his new shifter, and he slowed and swerved into me with no warning whatsoever. Now half of my backside bears a strong resemblance to Kim KardASShian's buttocks. It swole to quite a remarkable size within minutes of landing. And I am leaking from several places, too...Tomorrow is going to hurt. A lot.

The footaball/hockey/baseball analogy is actually sound - pros have to wear helmets but a bunch of mates who grab a football and go down to the local park don't (at least in theory - since you're all fat I assume no one plays football in the park).

The commentariat 10:33, not relevant? Australia just won the Cricket World Cup, so yeah, I think we're pretty fucking relevant. And when we put "World" in the title of a sporting event it means we actually compete against the World - many other great superpowers, like New Zealand.

Don't laugh, cricket is hardcore. Our footy players might not wear helmenents, but cricket batsmen do, and they need it. When they bring in the mandatory helmenentent law for beach cricket it won't be soon enough.

Regarding other cycling news, is there anybody alive who doesn't believe that Luca Paolini and the whole Katusha team, or, for that matter, the whole fucking Euro peloton are not doped to the gills. Professional bike racing is nothing more than a pharmaceutical arms race. It's stupid and I fucking hate it.

I survived the afternoon Fred ride of shame, sans helment. It was liberating. Ok, All these posts, Babs ass is hurting, and not one offer to rub a healing salve? Gentlemen, I for one, am ashamed for the lack of compassion and dare I say, chivalry? You know I would volunteer for the task, but I'm too far away. Here is some virtual healing Ms Babble. ( makes rubbing motion with hand in air)

I think here in the statesthe MHL will be toothless. As Babs mentioned , 3/28 @ 10:25, most riders will ignore the law, as will the police. Hell, NY already has an unenforced helmet low on the book since 2004. All riders under 14 must wear a helmet. Nobody sets their kids up with helmets anymore.

About Me

While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!